August 2016

Jun 20, 2011

Portions of the film Gasland will be shown at Elon Law School on Thursday 6/23, followed by a discussion of fracking in North Carolina, including remarks by Pricey Harrison. The event is free and open to the public.

Here's some fact-checking on claims and counterclaims about the movie. I don't think Gasland is the last word on the subject. Neither is, "we need domestic sources of energy, and the industry says fracking is completely safe."

Meanwhile, public scrutiny of fracking is yielding some results: "The natural-gas industry, bowing to longtime pressure, will disclose more information about the chemicals it uses in the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing."

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Let's see, by my count this is your 31st post in 2011 post on Gasland and/or fracking. I am not suggesting you are obsessive or hysterical but what about world hunger ?

You linked to the NY Times " fact checking " piece on the issue. It was lame and it's critique was nit picking on both sides. It did, however, point out some of the film maker's exaggerations and some of his "victim's" stubborn unwillingness to accept the facts. Comments on the article were missing.

Nick
Nyack
June 21st, 2010
3:15 pm
How does water 6000 feet below the ground escape from a steel tube encased in concrete? It doesn't. There are thousands of wells and yet because one person in Dimock had methane in the water (from a none shale well source), we should say stuff the jobs and the clean cheap energy. There is not a perfect source of energy. Never was, never will be.
Josh Fox seems to want to prevent landowners from doing what they want with their property. He doesn't actually live in PA. His family just has the land there. The poor hillbillies aren't as sophisticated as him I guess. And he wants to make sure they remain poorer.
Why doesn't HBO show The Haynesville Movie instead? Same subject but different view.

wlw
York, Pa
June 22nd, 2010
6:07 pm
The only trouble with Gasland is that people believe that it's true. In fact, it's like a Michael Moore movie without the truth part. There is no doubt that people have been screwed by gas companies -- that is why there are so many property owner's associations. But look where this movie is leading us. Natural gas is the worst form of energy there is -- except for all the other fossil fuels. We need gas as a bridge fuel to get away from coal and oil. We should not be looking at ways to block gas drilling, but rather ways to assure that it is as safe as man can make it. Gasland is basically anti-science and pro-hysteria. It really does a disservice to truth and to getting to green energy in the long run.

AustinGK
Austin, TX
June 25th, 2010
12:23 pm
I would like to address a portion of Paul CometX NYC's entry ("the "Haynesville" movie, which is nothing more than pro-drilling propaganda masquerading as a film"). To start, I have to ask the question:

Have you seen "Haynesville"? If not, that's okay. I would ask that you and everyone else please watch the film before discussing it.

If you had seen "Haynesville", you would know that the film is a balanced look at energy, it's human impact and what a path to a clean energy future could look like (spoiler alert: taking coal out of energy diet and using natural gas and conservation to get us to a renewable-based clean energy future). The film has been called "fair and smart" and a "humane take on a complicated subject". In fact, it has been suggested many times that "Haynesville" and "Gasland" should run together as complementary pieces (not sure what HBO has to say about that, but it is what it is).

As anyone who has seen the film would also know, the centerpiece of the film is woman named Kassi Fitzgerald. Her entire mission is to preserve environmental protections for her rural community's land and water supply.

Upon seeing "Haynesville", you would've noted that Kassi’s environmental fight is focused on surface spills of any (and all) chemicals from the drilling process. Asking most people involved with regulation and/or studying ill effects of drilling, this is a major concern. Even Josh Fox would probably concur.

Surely, you would have at least seen that the film postulates that the path to a clean energy future (as presented by Bill McKibben -- founder of 350.org and not exactly a "gas industry" guy) is a balanced approach of conservation, using natural gas to replace coal and a ramping up of a renewable-based power sources. In fact, in "Haynesville", Michael Tidwell (environmentalist and author of "The Ravaging Tide") says that we also need to be prepared to get off natural gas in the future. You’d have to admit this is not a “pro-drilling” stance.

My issue with your post is that it sounds as uninformed as what I read from the Glenn Beck loving, Drill-Baby-Drill folks.

The fact is that there is a place for "Haynesville", "Gasland" and any other project that opens the conversation on energy and the energy future. The hope is that these films (articles, books, etc.) bring people to the table to discuss the issues, their challenges and, ultimately, figure out the solution. The problem is that both far sides of the energy discussion won't meet in the middle. Instead, you hide on your cloistered side of the issue and lob insults at the other. From my perspective, this is a pretty crappy way to solve a problem.

In the end, we have a huge problem in the form of our current energy consumption habits and our current primary energy sources. We need to solve this problem by creating a more environmentally conscious approach to energy, its attainment and its use. If we can't come together and start the conversation, and if we continue to tolerate the petty snipes from the far right and the far left of the energy issue, then we will get what we deserve when the energy future and all its impending ugliness is decided for us.

- Gregory Kallenberg
Director of "Haynesville"

Holly
Bakersfield, Ca
June 29th, 2010
9:07 am
The fact is there are 13,000 wells that have been fraced in New York State since 1960 and not one has an issue. They have been fraced as shallow as 700 feet without any water contamination issues.
As usual the environmentally religious act on emotions not facts and believe the ends justify the means. They are the least ethical industry (yes, environmentalism is now a for profit business) in the USA.

HowieWowie
Texas
November 11th, 2010
8:52 am
we drilled in Texas over 100 years and never had drinking water problems and illnesses from natural gas(except H2S they died which is very rare) maybe all them Dumbstruck Yankees should come to Texas and learn how to produce a well and run casing where you don't have problems

I can't bear the thought of Pricey Harrison lecturing me on the environment. It is, however, nice of her to leave the beach home to come back in to her district, if only briefly. Besides I have set aside that day to rearrange my sock drawer. Remember wise guy, "we" know it all anyway.

You guys have fun beating this horse but I don't think any minds will be changed Thanks for the invite anyway, Ed.

Plug this into your post screening handwringing. I might be wrong but I'll bet there won't be any pussyfooting over there about getting that stuff out of the ground and pronto.

I suppose since "Too" Pricey Harrison is the featured speaker the N&R will, no doubt, give this kvetch prominent and positive coverage followed by a solemn editorial warning
about the horrors of fracking.
Thus I can then read the objective article and in that way be a small part of the disussions. Discussions is good.

I suppose Ms Harrison should speak now before she has to run against the Polyester Queen & an as-yet-unnamed female minority in a Primary in her new VRA district. Ahhhh- the political geography gods crack me up! Don't they you?

Somehow I had gotten the impression that Theresa Yon was more thoughtful and less divisive than the old Kindleyite wing of the local GOP. But if that's her contribution to a discussion thread about this issue, maybe I was wrong.

I was referred to as the trampy high heel wearing candidate (I prefer "stiletto"....) - wore it as a badge of honor.
Heck no Mr Roche. Hated EVERY second of it.
And like it or not - common sense says 2 women in a VRA district will most likely face a minority woman in a primary.And probably lose.
And Mr Cone I don't believe for a second you ever thought I was that thoughtful - but I would rather be referred to as the trampy-stiletto-wearing-queen than an old school Kindleyite. How divisive of you. And have you heard what your side (Democrat/ Liberal) is calling our City Council members lately?....

Asa for City Council - I watched the entire meeting Tuesday - they were called corrupt, bigoted, racist, they were told they were shameful, Zack was told he supports police brutality & corruption, Trudy was called a liar repeatedly, the list goes on. Right to their faces, Right there on channel 13. These people were not unidentified - you have to give your name & address to be a speaker from the floor.

My political opinions are thoughtful, my fashion opinions more so. I find myself at odds with my party on more than one issue, and in campaigning I saw things form the voters point of view - not just mine or my party's.

The woman wore a powder blue polyblend suit to every single debate, meeting & political event at which I saw her. After a while - that was just plain funny. If I had done it, I would have expected some laughs & poking fun directed at me. Perhaps it is her lucky campaign suit. And I never called my opponent a liar - she and her campaign manager did not give me the same courtesy. So if I poke a little fun at her - I am sure every one can get over it. Fact is still - that district is now toast for both of those ladies, in all likelihood.

Geez - get over it. Maggie never even had a website until she ran against me - and it's already defunct. I am guessing reading blogs ain't her thing. You seem to be the only who cares. How um......chivalrous, I suppose.